http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56002
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56002
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely 2013-03-16
20:22:40 UTC ---
Author: redi
Date: Sat Mar 16 20:22:30 2013
New Revision: 196710
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=196710
Log:
PR libstdc++/56002
* include/s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56002
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|un
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56002
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely 2013-03-16
19:46:07 UTC ---
Author: redi
Date: Sat Mar 16 19:45:53 2013
New Revision: 196706
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=196706
Log:
PR libstdc++/56002
* include/s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56002
--- Comment #3 from npl at chello dot at 2013-01-17 20:43:35 UTC ---
great, response looks already more promising than my other gcc
patches/requests.
Any chance this will find its way into 4.7.3?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56002
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2013-01-17
16:19:19 UTC ---
Yep, I'm fixing it.
I went to add a test for locks that wouldn't rely on thread support and found
I'd already added one ages ago:
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/trunk/libstdc%2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56002
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler at
|
